Plans for 1.8+ (2.0?)

[Justin C. Sherrill]

On Thu, February 1, 2007 3:20 am, Dmitri Nikulin wrote:

> That's not his point. He means that ZFS, while very good at what it
> is, would not be optimal for transparent clustering. And a file system
> which is designed for clustering won't necessarily be as good as ZFS
> on single machines. Either way, some use cases becomes sub-optimal,
> and it's a choice of what's more important to do first.

Sort of.  I'm saying that if Matt rolls his own filesystem instead of
using ZFS, that new filesystem is either:

1: not going to have the variety of tools available with zfs for handling
things like disk pooling/snapshots/data scrubbing/insert zfs term here.

2: going to have those features, which means Matt's time is going to be
eaten up reimplementing features already present in other filesystems.

It's a moot point until Matt can evaluate modifying existing filesystems
vs building a new one, though.  I don't want NIH-ism to get in the way of
having something neat, though